MPs should enter parliament for their principles, not for a pay rise

11 December 2013

By Roger Jeary

Earlier this year I blogged on this site some views on what was then speculation as to the level of MPs’ pay rise that the independent pay review body would come up with. The speculation has turned to reality and this week the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) recommended that MPs’ salaries should increase by 11% to £74,000 per annum. IPSA also advised that this increase be countered by reductions in some expenses, reducing pension costs and cutting the resettlement amount that retiring or deselected politicians receive.

Now many public service workers may have found their own increased pension costs a little more palatable had they too received inflation busting pay increases at the same time. But no, it is recommended that MPs should not feel the same pain as others in the sector and that the whole process should simply be cost neutral. Of course we are hearing the now familiar protestations from the majority of MPs that the timing of this increase is wholly inappropriate but I have yet to hear any politician actually say that they don’t think they are worth £74,000 per annum.

This amount is the basic level for a backbench MP so I have to question whether the skills and responsibilities of this role can be valued at this level. During the week, I heard politicians and political pundits referring to other professions as comparators. Is being an MP a profession? I have always equated professions with qualifications – doctors, lawyers, accountants, social workers, nurses – all requiring years of study and examinations. No MP has to go through such a process. That is not to say that to be a good MP you don’t need skills – you do, but qualifications are not a requirement.

Then we hear that the right people won’t be attracted to be politicians if we don’t pay this sort of salary. Of course the answer to this is quite simple – don’t apply. Even a well-known labour backbencher has argued that people of “modest” incomes will be deterred from standing as an MP if we do not implement this sort of salary. When the average pay is around £26,000 per annum, I would have thought that the current salary of £66,000 per annum is probably quite attractive to those on “modest” incomes.

There is a theory that if you pay more money then you get better applicants. That theory has been disproved in most professions and there is no reason to suppose that prospective MPs will buck that trend. Those that aspire to public service through entering parliament should do so on the basis of their principles and beliefs and an honest desire to argue for a better deal for the population at large. If we had a House full of such people then perhaps the outcry against these salary proposals would not be quite so loud.

However I suspect that the outcome of this debate is that MPs will once again demonstrate their remoteness from real life and the general belief that they appear to hold that they are “special”. The fact that none of this comes into play until after the next general election in 2015 at least means that they will have plenty of time to think how they can redistribute their extra £7,600 per annum each to a charity of their choice.